Sabres.com: Inexperience why we lost

[shrader]

Correct Blue. No matter how you slice it, inexperience is just an excuse for piss poor play. The Sabres just didn't want it as bad as Boston, plain and simple.

 

The whole "they just wanted it more" thing bugs me. What does that even mean? It just sounds like a cop out. People will say what they want about the experience thing. It obivously wasn't the cause of the lost, but it was a factor.

 

And looking at Blue's list, I go back to my thought that most of those guys really didn't play all that bad. The top end scorers didn't score and there's your key difference in the series. And seeing Vanek and Hecht on that list stings a bit too. I would have liked to see both of them play. Whether or not it, who knows, but they certainly couldn't have hurt.

[static70]

The whole "they just wanted it more" thing bugs me. What does that even mean? It just sounds like a cop out. People will say what they want about the experience thing. It obivously wasn't the cause of the lost, but it was a factor.

 

And looking at Blue's list, I go back to my thought that most of those guys really didn't play all that bad. The top end scorers didn't score and there's your key difference in the series. And seeing Vanek and Hecht on that list stings a bit too. I would have liked to see both of them play. Whether or not it, who knows, but they certainly couldn't have hurt.

Well shrader, it doesn't bug me in the least bit. The proof was on the score board for all to see, 4 games to 2. Buffalo lost 4 games, Boston won 4 games. 4 games to win a 7 game series. So, in effect, Boston wanted the series victory more than Buffalo. What bugs me is peoples inability to see it for what it is. Its a season ending situation. How badly did the Sabres want to move on to the next round of the playoffs? Obviously not badly enough to beat an offensively depleted Boston team. Did Rask's play have anything to do with this? I would counter that question with my own question, where was Millers play to carry a series? If its not on the 2 goal tenders play, then it comes back to the offense or defense.

 

You need to score more goals than your opponent in 60 minutes or more of play to win a hockey game. Buffalo failed to do that. With the scores being average for NHL games, not low, not high, just average, I'll submit that it was Buffalo's inept offensive play that showed through. They spent more time fending off the Boston forecheck than they did putting up their own forecheck. In short, Buffalo spent more time in their own end than in Bostons. Thats an execution problem, not an experience problem. You execute to get the puck out of your zone and moving up the ice.

[carpandean]

Well shrader, it doesn't bug me in the least bit. The proof was on the score board for all to see, 4 games to 2. Buffalo lost 4 games, Boston won 4 games. 4 games to win a 7 game series. So, in effect, Boston wanted the series victory more than Buffalo.

I do think that Boston wanted it more, but find this sentence to be completely flawed. The winner in the series is not always the one that wants it more. Wanting it more - basically, the willingness to fight for pucks, to sacrifice yourself to make or break up a play, etc. - helps, but skill and even luck still play roles in the final outcome.

 

You have to watch the games to see who wants it more. When I see loose puck after loose puck going to the Bruins because our players don't go in and fight for it, that tells me that the Bruins want it more. When I see our forwards skating around the perimeter and taking shots from the outside that are easily turned aside, while I see their forwards getting into that "dirty area" in front of the net and working to create scoring chances that tells me that the Bruins wanted it more. Most of the games could have gone either way and with a little "puck luck" here or there, the Sabres could have won it. However, I still would have said that the Bruins wanted it more. Game 1 was a great example of that.

[LabattBlue]

Thats fine,you go in with your green team and I'll go in with a majority seasoned vets with a few rookies.Its just my opinion.I'm sure if you polled every nhl g.m. they'd agree on which formula works.It ain't the team thats green.Also,just because it did'nt work for this sad sack group does'nt mean it does'nt work.

So the list of players I provided who went to the conference finals in back to back years are still considered "green"? Does a player need to be over the age of 35 before he becomes the grizzled vet you so desire?

[shrader]

It's one of the biggest cliches in all of sports and is a complete and total BS statement.

[henysgol]

It's one of the biggest cliches in all of sports and is a complete and total BS statement.

 

That's so true. The last game vs Boston, they didn't even wake up until the end of the 2nd period. You can't come out asleep for a do or die game. And the only guys "stepping up" were the rookies, and maybe Grier. I've said it a bunch of times, these guys have so much talent, we've seen what every single one of them is capable of. There are absolutely NO excuses for being defeated by Boston. And I'm pointing the finger at every single player with experience on the Sabres roster, as well as the coaches.

[carpandean]

It's one of the biggest cliches in all of sports and is a complete and total BS statement.

Overused and perhaps a misnomer, but not total BS. Call it intensity, call it compete, call it sacrifice; whatever, some guys are willing/able to do it more. They all want it, but do their action reflect how much they say they do? Was their any doubt that Drury wanted the Cup and was willing to do everything he could to make it happen? Could the same be said of all of his teammates? How about Grier, this year. It's not measurable and it doesn't always translate into wins, but you can see it.

 

Edit: wait, by "it" did do you mean "inexperience" or "wanting it more"? I assumed the latter.

[shrader]

Overused and perhaps a misnomer, but not total BS. Call it intensity, call it compete, call it sacrifice; whatever, some guys are willing/able to do it more. They all want it, but do their action reflect how much they say they do? Was their any doubt that Drury wanted the Cup and was willing to do everything he could to make it happen? Could the same be said of all of his teammates? How about Grier, this year. It's not measurable and it doesn't always translate into wins, but you can see it.

 

Edit: wait, by "it" did do you mean "inexperience" or "wanting it more"? I assumed the latter.

 

Wanting it more. I liked your comments about how guys sticking to the perimeter as opposed to getting down and dirty in the corners. The whole season the team played that style. Now all of a sudden when they play the same exact way in the playoffs that means they don't want it as much? The "they just wanted it more" excuse exists for the sole reason of refusing to admit that one team is actually better than the other.

[carpandean]

Wanting it more. I liked your comments about how guys sticking to the perimeter as opposed to getting down and dirty in the corners. The whole season the team played that style. Now all of a sudden when they play the same exact way in the playoffs that means they don't want it as much? The "they just wanted it more" excuse exists for the sole reason of refusing to admit that one team is actually better than the other.

True, they did and it did cost them some games in the regular season, too. However, when the intensity level steps up in the playoffs - and it does, of that you won't convince me otherwise - and teams tighten up their game, players have to be willing to change, to make a more difficult play (in this case, going in instead of staying on the perimeter.) If the other team is more willing to adjust, as they were here, then you lose more often than not.

 

It comes down to the old "willing and able" factor; not just able and also not just willing. "Able" is about skill. Most of the teams that didn't make the playoffs were not as "able" as most that did. I would argue that the Sabres were just as "able" to win this series; probably more. "Willing" is what gets referred to as "wanting it more" or "having heart". I have no doubt that the Bruins were more willing, at least top-to-bottom. Being more able probably made it a 4-2 series rather than a 4-0 series, but being less willing (especially key players) was a lot of why it was the Bruins' series in the end. Sure, inexperience cost them some (Kennedy getting beat out by Recchi, Lydman/Montador having to take over top-pairing because Myers was a little shaky, etc.), as did injuries (Vanek, Hecht; though the Bruins were without Savard, so ...), but willingness or lack thereof to adjust their game, to do what doesn't come easy, was a bigger factor.

[shrader]

I'm guessing PA might have a good possible explanation for why they can't adjust their game.

[VanBoxmeer]

If nothing changes why expect different results?

 

 

My thoughts exactly

[VanBoxmeer]

True, they did and it did cost them some games in the regular season, too. However, when the intensity level steps up in the playoffs - and it does, of that you won't convince me otherwise - and teams tighten up their game, players have to be willing to change, to make a more difficult play (in this case, going in instead of staying on the perimeter.) If the other team is more willing to adjust, as they were here, then you lose more often than not.

 

It comes down to the old "willing and able" factor; not just able and also not just willing. "Able" is about skill. Most of the teams that didn't make the playoffs were not as "able" as most that did. I would argue that the Sabres were just as "able" to win this series; probably more. "Willing" is what gets referred to as "wanting it more" or "having heart". I have no doubt that the Bruins were more willing, at least top-to-bottom. Being more able probably made it a 4-2 series rather than a 4-0 series, but being less willing (especially key players) was a lot of why it was the Bruins' series in the end. Sure, inexperience cost them some (Kennedy getting beat out by Recchi, Lydman/Montador having to take over top-pairing because Myers was a little shaky, etc.), as did injuries (Vanek, Hecht; though the Bruins were without Savard, so ...), but willingness or lack thereof to adjust their game, to do what doesn't come easy, was a bigger factor.

 

Sabres got knocked down in too many puck battles, key example was Kennedy which led to the Satan double OT winner. This is why we didn't win the series plain and simple

[MidwestSabresFan]

Agreed.

 

It is also an attitude that this team is not well suited for. Every time a Sabre got into Rask, the Bruins were like a pack of wild dogs on the Sabre. The Bruins didn't care if they got a penalty and they usually didn't because it is playoff hockey.

 

They also did it knowing that our PP was horrible.. erm atrocious... erm... non-existent. When your PP is 0.00%, NO ONE FEARS taking a penalty.. so why not?

[nobody]

I didn't read the article but I have to agree with it. Roy and Connolly did not have any playoff leadership experience. Another year or two of first round losses should give them the required leadership experience to get this team into the second round.

[Stoner]

I didn't read the article but I have to agree with it. Roy and Connolly did not have any playoff leadership experience. Another year or two of first round losses should give them the required leadership experience to get this team into the second round.

 

You're on fye-ah.

[darksabre]

I don't know if anyone caught the tidbit at the end of the Stafford article on the first page about Vanek wanting to get into "elite player shape" or not, but that statement bugs me to death. Shouldn't these guys already be in elite player shape? Isn't it their job to work with the training staff to make themselves top tier athletes? If Vanek isn't the most in-shape player on the team, then who should be?

 

Did we get beat because our team has slipped training wise? Do these guys spend too little time in the gym and too much time on Chippewa? I read somewhere that Nick Lidstrom rides the bike for a half hour after every game, just to make himself stronger. Is our training staff as much to blame as the players, coaching, and management?

 

Guys that have been around the league for years should not be getting pushed around like Nathan Gerbe. Heck, Gerbe shows more strength than most of our team does.

 

There has to be SOME reason why these guys aren't getting it done.

[carpandean]

I read somewhere that Nick Lidstrom rides the bike for a half hour after every game, just to make himself stronger. Is our training staff as much to blame as the players, coaching, and management?

Do you think anyone ever had to tell Nick Lidstrom to do that? Some guys just know what it takes and are willing to do it without being told. We need more of those guys.

[darksabre]

Do you think anyone ever had to tell Nick Lidstrom to do that? Some guys just know what it takes and are willing to do it without being told. We need more of those guys.

 

That's sort of what I'm getting at too. Some of these guys just have the ambition to always be better than they are. I think too many of the current Sabres are simply comfortable being about where they are. Which is no way to play the part of a professional athlete.

[Kristian]

Do you think anyone ever had to tell Nick Lidstrom to do that? Some guys just know what it takes and are willing to do it without being told. We need more of those guys.

 

What, you mean hitting the town, getting hammered isn't "what it takes"??

[BuffalOhio]

Experience counts, but look at the Flyers play right now. Relentless intensity wins in the playoffs. The Sabres don't have that.